To that end Sadr admonished the various militant groups, condemning the attacks on Iraqi Christians as well as the assassinations of government officials, saying “do not kill Iraqis but target the American forces.”

Sadr’s speech was one of the most highly anticipated in recent Iraqi history, and thousands of Shi’ites flocked to Najaf to hear it. It appears however that the crowd was a bit too much to handle for the cleric, and as the cheers and chanting grew more and more raucous, the cleric made a final call for the release of Mahdi Army detainees from Iraqi prison and abruptly left. Some reports suggest that was not designed to be the end of the speech but that the cleric decided to end early to avoid riling up the crowd even more.

There is another reason why the US will not allow al-Sadr to gain the upper hand in Iraq, because it may well push Iraq into the Iranian camp and upset the balance of power in the ME. It was not only oil that motivated the US to remove Sadam; it was also Israel with its powerful Zionist lobbies that were pushing for 'regime change', because Sadam at the time was actively supporting the Palestinian cause. The US under pressure from Zionism, will no doubt do everything in their power to prevent another 'regime change' in reverse happening in Iraq. This may also well be the reason for the imminent US/Israel attack on Iran. Time will tell. One thing is sure, the curtain still hasn't dropped over the ME (see also my previous comments on intense debate and posts 10 and 49 on Contraviews)

This is exactly the sort of speech the US expects and fears from Sadr, because they know he's right and he has the wherewithal to mount a credible resistance to US forces in the region. If he succeeds in uniting the various factions against the US, we can start counting the days- not weeks- we'll be in Iraq. I fear the US will not grasp this concept and the greater number of US military men and women will not come home except in body bags.

As for increasing Iranian influence, that process began the day the US destabilized Iraq- and it's sad, almost criminal, how the planners of the Iraq expedition did not take that into account and have paid for their blindness with the lives of our sons and daughters. It profiteth a man nothing to sell his soul for the world… but for Iraq?

As much as I like his talk, I think he is very naive in expecting that the US troops will ever leave. That the USG was promising this once was only for tactical reason to take out some of the fiercest resistance and give those people some (false) hope for the future. Anybody who knows about US policy knew all the time that the US would not easily give up Iraq for several reasons, first for strategic rwason agaiinst Russia and China (who still obviously didn't get this) and second for securing its oil shipments.
W0

It is true that the US has promised a lot of things and then has turned around and acted treacherously. However, this was the fault of the victims themselves. How long could the US have resisted a united Iraq? Probably a few months, at most. They were having a lot of problems facing just the Sunnis. If Iraq's leadership makes up its mind and is does not get bribed, the US will be out whether they like it or not.

Wanting an end to America's brutal and illegal occupation of his country makes al-Sadr anti US? I expect that frame from the corporate media but seeing Antiwar.com repeating the same lie is very disappointing.